<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.04.2013 21:39, schrieb John Day:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:a0624081dcda086f91382@%5B10.0.1.3%5D"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=us-ascii">
<title>Re: [e2e] Port numbers in the network
layer?</title>
<div>X.25 does not provide the same reliability that TCP or TP4
does.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
What is the difference?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:a0624081dcda086f91382@%5B10.0.1.3%5D"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As Jon described, it is important to note that X.25 is an
*interface* protocol in the ITU sense of interface. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
In Germany, you could order an x.25 connection between site A and
site B. I don't know whether this is still possible, but a few years
ago, it was.<br>
<br>
To my understanding, from the user's point of view, this was a
reliable character stream. Is this correct? Or do I miss something?<br>
<br>
So, where is the precise difference to what I get, when I use a
"Stream Socket" in Unix?<br>
<br>
I'm just trying to figure out the system model used in the congavoid
paper. That's why I'm interested in these things.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre>--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Detlef Bosau
Galileistraße 30
70565 Stuttgart Tel.: +49 711 5208031
mobile: +49 172 6819937
skype: detlef.bosau
ICQ: 566129673
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:detlef.bosau@web.de">detlef.bosau@web.de</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.detlef-bosau.de">http://www.detlef-bosau.de</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>